|
|
Posted by FCP User on 09/20/07 08:03
In article <5le2feF7rerqU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote:
> "FCP User" wrote ...
> > "Richard Crowley" wrote:
> >> "Bill Fright" wrote ...
> >> > Exactly. I still have the same question though. Why is
> >> > nappy so threatened with video maker magazine?
> >>
> >> He doesn't appear threatened. He appears annoyed with
> >> what appears to be just another marketing/propaganda
> >> campaign dressed up as "training" and charging $$$ yet.
> >> Nice work if you can get it. And if your conscience will let
> >> you get away with it.
> >
> > Okay Richard,
> >
> > You claim that Videomaker's training programs are "marketing/propaganda"
> > dressed up as "training" (directly quoting) and you seem to imply that
> > their programs are somehow too expensive for what the attendee gets.
>
> If you wanted to "directly quote" me, you would have included
> my qualifying phrase "what appears to be". I will admit that
> I should have written "what may be" since I did not examine
> the cited material.
>
> As someone who is in the training field, I also read student
> evaluation forms and I have compared what the students'
> perception of content is to actual audits of classes from the
> perspective of content-experts and long-time users.
If the point about my quote was meant to imply that I was attempting to
quote you out of context, it's pretty difficult to assert since I left
the full text attached with your ENTIRE response attached and untouched.
And it's also pretty hard to argue that your final sentence doesn't
pretty clearly imply a level of deceit, or at least chicanery being
involved.
A sore point for me since I was involved in not only the teaching of
these seminars, but in the creation of many of the course outlines and
in some cases, even the actual lesson plans - In concert with my wife,
who holds a BA in Education and practiced as a school district
instructional specialist in the areas of both elementary and adult
education.
Your suggested course evaluation modality would appeal to me more if
there wasn't a solid argument that the kind of judgement criteria you
propose would be much more applicable for mid-level or advanced classes.
If the stated goal of a class is simply to bring someone who knows
little about a subject up to a greater level of awareness and
competence, I'd argue that this can be determined without the
requirement of outside auditing and that the satisfaction of the class
purchaser is, ipso facto, the primary measurement in determining success
or failure.
Remember, we're not teaching to tests, graduation requirements, nor even
professional certificate standards here. Just the voluntary acquisition
and enhancement of personal knowledge in a technical hobby/craft.
Precisely what is being offered without any apologies.
> Yes, I am saying that the student's perception is not always
> valid, especially in areas where the subject matter is new to
> the student, and where whizzy hardware and/or software tend
> to distract (and even entertain)
> I myself have written positive evaluations of classes which
> from the perspective of subsequent real-world application
> turned out to be more flash than substance.
>
> The content of the classes you instructed and others offered
> by Videomaker may indeed be great. But we don't have any
> independent means of verifying that from our end.
I would disagree with that. I have a very PUBLIC record of my
qualifications for teaching people about basic video production
techniques that you or anyone else can readily research in your local
library or on line at the Videomaker web site.
After all, I spent 10 years there as a writer, columnist, contributing
editor, and occasional product reviewer.
So my opinions and quaifications to teach material precisely like what
is offered by the seminars we're debating are tremendously easy to
verify. Just review my work in the magazine.
I suppose someone could argue that while I might have the core
understanding of production concepts reflected in those many, many
pages, I somehow could have poor presentation or instructional skills.
But I think it's fair to ask for the benefit of the doubt in the face of
that verifiable evidence of my professionally published work at the
precise level that the original debate concerned.
>
> By the time Videomaker magazine appeared, I was rather past
> the target demographic. I have never subscribed to it, but my
> few encounters with it left the impression that it was firmly
> in the constellation of similar popular technology publications
> which appear to be influenced by advertisers and potential
> advertisers, and are managed by editorial staff whose marketing
> and promotion skills may overshadow their technical expertiese.
Well, that's your judgement call. Again, I'd ask you to consider that
the initial post that started this thread was NOT a pitch for advanced
training or any sort of bait and switch foolery like "take this simple
course and start your CAREER producing videos"
The precise language that sent nappy off foaming at the mouth was this:
"Opportunity for videographers and aspiring filmmakers to gain
inspiration, and develop their skills."
It seems to me that they are being scrupulously HONEST in describing
precisely what they are offering. They have a 20+ year history of
offering similar seminars to good effect and generally good reviews.
These are NOT high level professional seminars nor have the EVER
suggested that they are - and the registration fees have typically been
pretty modest - about what I spend on DVCAM tape in an average month.
I just don't get the presumption that they're somehow trying to "trick"
anyone.
>
> > Are you somehow implying that the audiences who spent the money to
> > attend were made up entirely of people who were too stupid to evaluate
> > the quality of their own learning experiences?
> >
> > The way free markets are supposed to work is that people produce goods
> > and services, and the CONSUMER is allowed to decide the level of quality
> > and price they're willing to pay.
>
> Nobody supports the free market more than I. But you will
> have to admit that same free market allows people to sell
> whatever customers will buy, regardless of the actual value.
Yes, but when the value proposition is UNTENABLE, those companies
largely FAIL.
Videomaker has been doing this for more than 20 years. So the rational
presumption has to be that they are SATISFYING their customer base.
> I don't think that even you would claim that ALL of these
> classes/seminars/tutorials. etc. are sterling examples of
> the genre.
>
Heaven's no. There will ALWAYS be variations in quality in delivering
services to customers over time. Heck, I remember having to do emergency
substitutions for scheduled lecturers a couple of times over the years,
and had to stumble along ill-prepared, the best I could.
In EVERY one of those cases, however, the audience was informed of the
emergency and was given the opportunity to switch out of the class and
or have their class fees refunded.
Again, precisely what any other legitimate organization would do.
> > Videomaker appeals to a legitimate market segment - the
> > hobbyist/prosumer. The people who have spent MILLIONS with companies
> > like Sony, Canon, JVC and others creating an amazingly innovative
> > "prosumer" market that has driven technology WAY down in price and WAY
> > up in price/performance ratio.
>
> Yes, I agree with you. And many of us have benefitted from
> the resulting scale of economic production. I love my Sony
> TRV-900, for example. Alas, that golden age appers to be
> over as we see newer equipment which has been intentionally
> "dumbed down" so that such consumer equipment doesn't
> impact sales of the manufacturers' more up-market products.
> (Example: Sony TRV-950)
No argument on that.
>
> > I taught those seminars for many, many years, and I'm telling you we
> > took our attendees needs VERY seriously and did our best to provide them
> > real value for their dollars.
> >
> > If you're going to claim different. I'd appreciate it if you'd provide
> > some back up facts for your allegation that what I was providing during
> > all those hours was merely "marketing/propaganda dressed up as training."
> >
> > Because in a cabinet somewhere in California there's stacks and stacks
> > of those evaluations from people in a MUCH better position to judge the
> > truth of that than you.
>
> Let me know next time you are teaching one of these classes
> and I will attend it myself and give you my personal evaluation.
I'm actually sorry I'm not teaching them any longer. If I was, I'd be
delighted to have you drop by any class I was teaching as my guest.
I had a GREAT time doing them. It was pretty much a finanacial "break
even" for me - but I had no problem with that since I always saw it as
an opportunity to build and improve my skills as lecturer - something I
found both satisfying and very enjoyable.
And I also enjoyed helping a lot of great people, like the elementary
and secondary teachers who frequently were in our audiences - who, after
having their local school administration assign them as school video
reporter advisors, realized that there were few sources for basic
training in this area.
It was precisely this that caused me to develop SEN.
Most of US had to pick this stuff up on our own or in expensive formal
educational settings. I thought simple training at low cost for a
YouTube obsessed generation was a pretty decent business foundation.
I still do.
--
Bill Davis
StartEditingNow.com
DVD editing instruction with Multi-Track Movies
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|